"N Cook" wrote in message
...
Ecnerwal wrote in message
...
In article ,
"N Cook" wrote:

Anyone know the term for laying double traces of solder along copper
traces
to increase current carrying , so I can research it ?

No, but it's a dumb idea. It's fairly easy to dump solder "accurately"
on a trace (if not covered by soldermask, hopefully that's obvious) -
just heat and feed solder, it will follow the trace, and you can build
it up quite a ways simply from surface tension. If you need more current
capacity on the trace, bend up a chunk of copper wire that actually
conducts well and solder that on. Solder is a lousy conductor, compared
to copper. The copper will hold more solder on there, but most of the
current will be carried by the copper.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

I get the impression board layout designers just use what has worked
before
as far as track dimensions etc and don't actually consider in great detail
catastrophic failure modes. Yes this kit does support the CE mark.
I've not been able to find design data/tables for such traces.
I may dig out a low voltage 60 amp transformer fed via a variac and
sacrifice some otherwise unaffected tracks on this board to determine what
sort of amperage to cause excessive heating and then another bit of track
to
find the rupture current. Having to avoid localised failure at my test
join-points with a lot of distributed solder.



Just interested ... Do you actually make a living out of repairing this
stuff ? If I spent as much time as you seem to, worrying about esoteric
things like how much current a track will take before it vapourises, I would
long since have ceased to earn enough money to get by on. These days, I find
that it has to be 'wheel it in, fix it, wheel it out , invoice it, next
please'. If the bit called 'fix it' takes longer than an hour, and the value
of the kit is less than 150 quid, that bit changes to 'bin it' ...

Arfa